@malloc I don't think it's strange to think that some people simply won't get on with the level of immersion when the game experience is quite 'visceral'. But imagine the Sony game 'Flower' in VR - fantastic. Reply0

@kinky_mong IIRC the Uncharted Vita game definitely did it, by making you rotate the vita around and using the gyros. Amusingly, it went utterly mental when I was trying to do it on a moving train. Reply+2

@Dizzy 'Why was Tim Shafer not grilled as hard as Peter Molyneux? He's just as 'bad'.

Tim Shafer and Double Fine have produced several critically and publicly well received games. His kickstarter'ed project has shipped part one which most people seem to consider to be a satisfactory product. He hasn't shipped the later parts and therefore hasn't met his stated kickstarter goals

Peter Molyneux and 22Cans have shipped two micro-transaction infested iOS games that were, frankly, not well received. His kickstarted game has yet to meet the larger chunk of it's stated goals while producing something (one of the previously stated iOS games) that wasn't actually mentioned as a goal. And, frankly, doesn't sound like it ever will meet the rest of it's goals.

Shafer has done enough recently to convince people to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Molyneux simply hasn't. Reply+5

@Tomahawk 'But he keeps promising features that end up on the cutting room floor.'
Read the article again. The example Rich uses is that he specifically played on Rich's interest in a feature that was never, ever going to be in the game at all. It never made it to the cutting room floor because it was never there in the first place and never would have been, but Peter used it to push Rich towards writing a favourable preview (and get a few pre-orders if you want to be cynical). This is not the innocent mistake you're suggesting, it is a simple deception, for which there is no excuse.

And if you believe that it was a one-off and that Rich was alone in this happening to him, Peter has this amazing bridge he'd like to sell you. When it's finished.

The fact is from now on, Pete has to deliver something absolutely excellent to get anything like any credibility back. Maybe it'll Godus, maybe it'll be Trails, whatever. But from now on, Pete has to over deliver or he'll keep getting a kicking. And what do you think the chances of that are?

he's spent 15 years building a rod for his own back. he can hardly complain that he's finally been hit by it. Reply+23

Is there? I was looking into this at one point and it appeared at the time that there was much argument that forum owners & etc should be accorded the same protections as legal 'carriers'. This was argued both for ISPs whose wires the data travelled over and website owners who had publicly editable content on their sites. The argument was in the same way as we don't hold the royal mail responsible for obscene items sent through the post, so there's no reason we should hold ISPs/web site owners liable for the content that other people put on their systems - beyond the duty to remove them or suspend transmission once legally required to do so . Has that issue been resolved? Can you point to some info on the resulting ruling?

'In real-world terms, how long can you let it get uploaded before it become tacit approval?'
If I send you a thousand emails, one of which with some child porn attached and they get filtered into your junk mail folder, does the fact you haven't deleted that one email within a certain period imply approval? Or just that you simply don't have the time and resources to look at every message in that folder. The ability of site hosts to vet every single piece of content on popular internet forums is marginal at best. If it was required, most web sites (including EG I suspect) would have to close their forums. The vast majority rely on user alertness to do the vetting for them. The law recognises that you can'r be held responsible for things if you can't reasonably be expected to be able to stop them. Reply-1

Ultimately, though, the piecemeal structure of its content and pricing belies its digital roots as a mobile game

Surely that's the wrong way round? The structure and pricing are the things that make it's 'digital roots' most obvious. 'Belies' = 'fails to give a true impression of', which is the exact opposite of what is meant, I think. Reply+5

@dopeonthetable I've had a similar opinion for a while but you've put it better than I could. EG at the mo definitely feels 'transitional'. The obvious thing to point at is Tom leaving and Ollie taking over. Whether EG's audience want the new version, well, guess we'll have to wait and see. Reply+1

NOTE: This does not make the price any less ludicrous, there's no way I'd buy a controller that cost almost as much as a new console. But in this case I don't think we're actually being ripped off any more than the Americans, that's all. Reply+3

@vincefairbairn Fair enough. But being slightly cynical I suspect an awful lot of people will have forgotten most of Destiny's actual problems by the time Destiny 2 comes out and will end up buying it anyway. There are several big game franchises that have been getting progressively worse for years but it doesn't seem to have stopped people buying them in their droves. Reply+4

Does it matter how many active users there are? Why? It's not a subscription model.

They don't need to keep people playing. Everyone buys Destiny, that's the money Bungie/Act expected to get. The total income is copies sold X price of a copy. Does it matter if that copy gets used every day, or sits on the shelves in CEX after a week? No, not a jot. They already have the money.

It's relevant insofar as it's a limiting factor on how many copies of the DLC they're likely to sell but that's likely to be diminishing returns anyway, all DLC pretty much is. Plus the season pass means they've already sold a load of DLC to people who probably won't end up playing it at all.

In fact, in purely cynical terms, Bungie/Aci's ideal situation is 13 million people buy it, nobody at all actually plays it. That way they get 13 million sales worth of profit but their ongoing upkeep costs (bandwidth, servers etc) are as minimal as possible. It's the 'The Producers' model to a degree, but it's actually true.

So the game cost $500 million all in and they sold 13 million copies. Maybe a quarter of people already bought the DLC or the season pass. So that's probably north of $800m in income. They're in profit, almost certainly in tens of millions of profit.

Destiny as a game has manifest issues. Destiny as a commercial product? Almost certainly a massive success. Reply+2

Folks who don't like Cid's design (or people like A. Sark who question female rep in games) just want devs to take a look at what they're doing and get out of the 90s. No insidious "agenda" here.

While I'm actually in favour of the point, telling another person/group to change their behaviour because it doesn't match up to your political or societal beliefs is actually a pretty good definition of 'an agenda' in fact. It's not insidious insofar as it's pretty overt but other than that..

Declan Gough, head of content and marketing at Future Games, Music and Film, said the "online audiences" of Edge, Official PlayStation, Total Xbox and CVG will all be folded into GamesRadar+.

Wow, that's not arrogant at all is it? I think there's distinct possibility the gaming community will take up the option of not being 'folded into' your craptacular portal and will sod off to where it's better serviced. Reply+1

@Malek86 It's actually quite hard to find boxed Vita software any more, even when it's released. None of the supermarkets sell it and Game have pretty much abdicated it to. So it's either online (e.g amazon) or digital. And if you're going online to get it anyway... Reply+4

More surprised about how low Warlords of Draenor is to be honest. Multiplat game beating exclusive game? Not particularly a shock. A WoW expansion not selling crazy numbers? That's a surprise. Reply+12

Compare and contrast the somewhat self-aware nature of the first MW with the ludicrous 'bro-esque' live action trailer for the latest one. I don't know if it's got worse in gameplay terms but it's certainly got much, much more stupid. Reply+22

Fitbit Announced a new set of devices day before yesterday. The top range model is a smartwatch as well. Looks to cost about the same as this. Not due for sale until early next year though. Do a search for 'Fitbit Surge' for info, there's next to nothing useful on Fitbit's official site for some reason. Reply+3

@LittleMousy I've always assumed the special events rotate round in some way, so Iron Banner will be back again at some point (as will Queen's Wrath for example), so it's always worth accumulating points because you can add more 'next time round' and eventually get something useful from it.

@Dynasty2021 Really? What would be 'almost all'? Those apart from the ones who decided not to comment on the social part of the game because it doesn't really work unless you have tons of people playing it, being, you know, SOCIAL, which they didn't have because they were reviewing it before it went 'live' to the public?

So in other words all the reviews that were talking out their arse? Reply-1

Quite so. The only thing this has over Payday is the engine. Other than that, from what I've seen so far, Payday did everything else better. And it's a what, three year old game by a small studio? Reply+5

@raheel9 - I didn't play it on PS3 but on PS4 there are certain missions and modes you need a PS+ sub to play but certain other bits you don't, so you can at least have a look at it if you like. Reply0